I'm trying to read a text file that contains a integer represented in ASCII (for example, "2446") and parse that into an integer in my Erlang/OTP program. string:to_integer/1 always returns {error, no_integer} when I try to parse "1". Perhaps I made a beginner's mistake. What am I doing wrong? Here's the relevant code, where I try to set Index to the integer:
Index = case file:read_file(Indexpath) of
{ok, Binary} ->
Index2 = case string:to_integer(io_lib:format("~s", [Binary])) of
{error, Reason} ->
io:format("to_integer error from input ~s: ~s~n", [Binary, Reason]),
0;
{Index3, _} -> Index3
end,
Index2;
{error, _} ->
Index2 = 0,
ok = file:write_file(Indexpath, io_lib:format("~B", [Index2+1])),
Index2;
_ ->
io:format("read_file case didn't match!~n", []),
-1
end,
What gets printed to the console when I run this: to_integer error from input 1: no_integer
Clearly, the input is the string "1", so I don't understand why this happens. If I do a little test case,
Indexstr = "4", string:to_integer(Indexstr).
that returns {4, []} as expected.
This is because io_lib:format/2 returns iolist (similar to deep list) instead of flat one. You can find iolist definition here.
Moreover, in new versions of erlang (starting from R16) you can use function `erlang:binary_to_integer/1' to avoid intermediate conversions.
Found the answer as I was typing the question. I replaced
string:to_integer(io_lib:format("~s", [Binary]))
with
string:to_integer(binary_to_list(Binary))
Related
I have the following code. I am checking 3 conditions. You can see for the first condition I stored the output of xml:get_tag_attr_s(...) in a variable and then used the variable within the if block. My problem is I get error illegal guard expression, if I try to do the above process in one line like I did for the other two conditions.
Also, I am getting variable '_' is unbound from the default condition. It supposed to be the same thing.
Can somebody please explain the issue?
validate_xmpp(Packet) ->
Type = xml:get_tag_attr_s(list_to_binary("type"), Packet),
if
(Type /= <<"chat">> ->
{error, "Message type is not chat"};
xml:get_path_s(Packet, [{elem, list_to_binary("body")}, cdata]) /= <<"">> ->
{error, "No or empty body"};
exml_query:path(Packet, [{element,<<"received">>},{attr,<<"xmlns">>}]) == <<"urn:xmpp:receipts">> ->
{error, "delivery-receipts should be ignored"};
_->
{ok, xml:get_tag_attr_s(list_to_binary("from"), Packet)}
end.
Erlang allows only these to be guards:
The atom true
Other constants (terms and bound variables), all regarded as false
Calls to the BIFs (built-in functions) specified in table Type Test BIFs
Term comparisons
Arithmetic expressions
Boolean expressions
Short-circuit expressions (andalso and orelse)
For more info take a look http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/expressions.html#id83606
Instead of _ use true. You cannot use _ in if, only in case statements, and also take a look at the docs.
isPrime(A,B) when B>math:sqrt(A) -> true;
That results in an illegal guard error.
On a first reading, it looks like the guard contains a "term comparison":
>
and an "arithmetic expression":
math:sqrt(A)
Futhermore, if you play around with the code, you will see that the guard:
B > A+2
is legal. So what's the difference between the "arithmetic expression" math:sqrt(A) and A+2?
The Erlang docs define an "arithmetic expression" as: `
+
-
*
/
div
rem
bnot
band
bor
bxor
bsl
bsr
Notably, math:sqrt() is not in the list of "arithmetic expressions". Therefore, math:sqrt(A) is a "function call" rather than an "arithmetic expression", and you can only call a certain limited number of functions in a guard, namely the "type test BIF's" listed here, such as:
is_integer/1
is_float/1
is_binary/1
is_list/1
is_map/1
is_function/1
etc.
I am learning Erlang from a Ruby background and having some difficulty grasping the thought process. The problem I am trying to solve is the following:
I need to make the same request to an api, each time I receive a unique ID in the response which I need to pass into the next request until there is not ID returned. From each response I need to extract certain data and use it for other things as well.
First get the iterator:
ShardIteratorResponse = kinetic:get_shard_iterator(GetShardIteratorPayload).
{ok,[{<<"ShardIterator">>,
<<"AAAAAAAAAAGU+v0fDvpmu/02z5Q5OJZhPo/tU7fjftFF/H9M7J9niRJB8MIZiB9E1ntZGL90dIj3TW6MUWMUX67NEj4GO89D"...>>}]}
Parse out the shard_iterator..
{_, [{_, ShardIterator}]} = ShardIteratorResponse.
Make the request to kinesis for the streams records...
GetRecordsPayload = [{<<"ShardIterator">>, <<ShardIterator/binary>>}].
[{<<"ShardIterator">>,
<<"AAAAAAAAAAGU+v0fDvpmu/02z5Q5OJZhPo/tU7fjftFF/H9M7J9niRJB8MIZiB9E1ntZGL90dIj3TW6MUWMUX67NEj4GO89DETABlwVV"...>>}]
14> RecordsResponse = kinetic:get_records(GetRecordsPayload).
{ok,[{<<"NextShardIterator">>,
<<"AAAAAAAAAAFy3dnTJYkWr3gq0CGo3hkj1t47ccUS10f5nADQXWkBZaJvVgTMcY+nZ9p4AZCdUYVmr3dmygWjcMdugHLQEg6x"...>>},
{<<"Records">>,
[{[{<<"Data">>,<<"Zmlyc3QgcmVjb3JkISEh">>},
{<<"PartitionKey">>,<<"BlanePartitionKey">>},
{<<"SequenceNumber">>,
<<"49545722516689138064543799042897648239478878787235479554">>}]}]}]}
What I am struggling with is how do I write a loop that keeps hitting the kinesis endpoint for that stream until there are no more shard iterators, aka I want all records. Since I can't re-assign the variables as I would in Ruby.
WARNING: My code might be bugged but it's "close". I've never ran it and don't see how last iterator can look like.
I see you are trying to do your job entirely in shell. It's possible but hard. You can use named function and recursion (since release 17.0 it's easier), for example:
F = fun (ShardIteratorPayload) ->
{_, [{_, ShardIterator}]} = kinetic:get_shard_iterator(ShardIteratorPayload),
FunLoop =
fun Loop(<<>>, Accumulator) -> % no clue how last iterator can look like
lists:reverse(Accumulator);
Loop(ShardIterator, Accumulator) ->
{ok, [{_, NextShardIterator}, {<<"Records">>, Records}]} =
kinetic:get_records([{<<"ShardIterator">>, <<ShardIterator/binary>>}]),
Loop(NextShardIterator, [Records | Accumulator])
end,
FunLoop(ShardIterator, [])
end.
AllRecords = F(GetShardIteratorPayload).
But it's too complicated to type in shell...
It's much easier to code it in modules.
A common pattern in erlang is to spawn another process or processes to fetch your data. To keep it simple you can spawn another process by calling spawn or spawn_link but don't bother with links now and use just spawn/3.
Let's compile simple consumer module:
-module(kinetic_simple_consumer).
-export([start/1]).
start(GetShardIteratorPayload) ->
Pid = spawn(kinetic_simple_fetcher, start, [self(), GetShardIteratorPayload]),
consumer_loop(Pid).
consumer_loop(FetcherPid) ->
receive
{FetcherPid, finished} ->
ok;
{FetcherPid, {records, Records}} ->
consume(Records),
consumer_loop(FetcherPid);
UnexpectedMsg ->
io:format("DROPPING:~n~p~n", [UnexpectedMsg]),
consumer_loop(FetcherPid)
end.
consume(Records) ->
io:format("RECEIVED:~n~p~n",[Records]).
And fetcher:
-module(kinetic_simple_fetcher).
-export([start/2]).
start(ConsumerPid, GetShardIteratorPayload) ->
{ok, [ShardIterator]} = kinetic:get_shard_iterator(GetShardIteratorPayload),
fetcher_loop(ConsumerPid, ShardIterator).
fetcher_loop(ConsumerPid, {_, <<>>}) -> % no clue how last iterator can look like
ConsumerPid ! {self(), finished};
fetcher_loop(ConsumerPid, ShardIterator) ->
{ok, [NextShardIterator, {<<"Records">>, Records}]} =
kinetic:get_records(shard_iterator(ShardIterator)),
ConsumerPid ! {self(), {records, Records}},
fetcher_loop(ConsumerPid, NextShardIterator).
shard_iterator({_, ShardIterator}) ->
[{<<"ShardIterator">>, <<ShardIterator/binary>>}].
As you can see both processes can do their job concurrently.
Try from your shell:
kinetic_simple_consumer:start(GetShardIteratorPayload).
Now your see that your shell process turns to consumer and you will have your shell back after fetcher will send {ItsPid, finished}.
Next time instead of
kinetic_simple_consumer:start(GetShardIteratorPayload).
run:
spawn(kinetic_simple_consumer, start, [GetShardIteratorPayload]).
You should play with spawning processes - it's erlang main strength.
In Erlang, you can write loop using tail recursive functions. I don't know the kinetic API, so for simplicity, I just assume, that kinetic:next_iterator/1 return {ok, NextIterator} or {error, Reason} when there are no more shards.
loop({error, Reason}) ->
ok;
loop({ok, Iterator}) ->
do_something_with(Iterator),
Result = kinetic:next_iterator(Iterator),
loop(Result).
You are replacing loop with iteration. First clause deals with case, where there are no more shards left (always start recursion with the end condition). Second clause deals with case, where we got some iterator, we do something with it and call next.
The recursive call is last instruction in the function body, which is called tail recursion. Erlang optimizes such calls - they don't use call stack, so they can run infinitely in constant memory (you will not get anything like "Stack level too deep")
i have an crazy problem with pattern matching in erlang:
My receive block:
...
receive
{set_val,Val} ->
log("got: ~p",[Val]);
Any ->
log("~p is an unknown command",[Any])
end.
What I send:
...
{myreceive,myreceive#workstation} ! {set_val,100}
What in my Log appears:
{set_val,100} is an unknown command
how come, that the first pattern does not match? (and how to make it matching :/ )
The only possibility I see is that Val is already bound in your function to a value different from 100.
It seems to work as expected.
1> spawn(fun() -> receive {set_val, Val} -> io:format("got: ~p~n", [Val]); Any -> io:format("~p is an unknown command",[Any]) end end) ! {set_val,100}.
got: 100
{set_val,100}
As Pascal mentioned there have to be variable Val already bound to something different from 100.
So I've been using Erlang for the last eight hours, and I've spent two of those banging my head against the keyboard trying to figure out the exception error my console keeps returning.
I'm writing a dice program to learn erlang. I want it to be able to call from the console through the erlang interpreter. The program accepts a number of dice, and is supposed to generate a list of values. Each value is supposed to be between one and six.
I won't bore you with the dozens of individual micro-changes I made to try and fix the problem (random engineering) but I'll post my code and the error.
The Source:
-module(dice2).
-export([d6/1]).
d6(1) ->
random:uniform(6);
d6(Numdice) ->
Result = [],
d6(Numdice, [Result]).
d6(0, [Finalresult]) ->
{ok, [Finalresult]};
d6(Numdice, [Result]) ->
d6(Numdice - 1, [random:uniform(6) | Result]).
When I run the program from my console like so...
dice2:d6(1).
...I get a random number between one and six like expected.
However when I run the same function with any number higher than one as an argument I get the following exception...
**exception error: no function clause matching dice2:d6(1, [4|3])
... I know I I don't have a function with matching arguments but I don't know how to write a function with variable arguments, and a variable number of arguments.
I tried modifying the function in question like so....
d6(Numdice, [Result]) ->
Newresult = [random:uniform(6) | Result],
d6(Numdice - 1, Newresult).
... but I got essentially the same error. Anyone know what is going on here?
This is basically a type error. When Result is a list, [Result] is a list with one element. E.g., if your function worked, it would always return a list with one element: Finalresult.
This is what happens (using ==> for "reduces to"):
d6(2) ==> %% Result == []
d6(2, [[]]) ==> %% Result == [], let's say random:uniform(6) gives us 3
d6(1, [3]) ==> %% Result == 3, let's say random:uniform(6) gives us 4
d6(0, [4|3]) ==> %% fails, since [Result] can only match one-element lists
Presumably, you don't want [[]] in the first call, and you don't want Result to be 3 in the third call. So this should fix it:
d6(Numdice) -> Result = [], d6(Numdice, Result). %% or just d6(Numdice, []).
d6(0, Finalresult) -> {ok, Finalresult};
d6(Numdice, Result) -> d6(Numdice - 1, [random:uniform(6) | Result]).
Lesson: if a language is dynamically typed, this doesn't mean you can avoid getting the types correct. On the contrary, it means that the compiler won't help you in doing this as much as it could.
I would like to convert a string containing a valid Erlang expression to its abstract syntax tree representation, without any success so far.
Below is an example of what I would like to do. After compiling, alling z:z(). generates module zed, which by calling zed:zed(). returns the result of applying lists:reverse on the given list.
-module(z).
-export([z/0]).
z() ->
ModuleAST = erl_syntax:attribute(erl_syntax:atom(module),
[erl_syntax:atom("zed")]),
ExportAST = erl_syntax:attribute(erl_syntax:atom(export),
[erl_syntax:list(
[erl_syntax:arity_qualifier(
erl_syntax:atom("zed"),
erl_syntax:integer(0))])]),
%ListAST = ?(String), % This is where I would put my AST
ListAST = erl_syntax:list([erl_syntax:integer(1), erl_syntax:integer(2)]),
FunctionAST = erl_syntax:function(erl_syntax:atom("zed"),
[erl_syntax:clause(
[], none,
[erl_syntax:application(
erl_syntax:atom(lists),
erl_syntax:atom(reverse),
[ListAST]
)])]),
Forms = [erl_syntax:revert(AST) || AST <- [ModuleAST, ExportAST, FunctionAST]],
case compile:forms(Forms) of
{ok,ModuleName,Binary} -> code:load_binary(ModuleName, "z", Binary);
{ok,ModuleName,Binary,_Warnings} -> code:load_binary(ModuleName, "z", Binary)
end.
String could be "[1,2,3].", or "begin A=4, B=2+3, [A,B] end.", or anything alike.
(Note that this is just an example of what I would like to do, so evaluating String is not an option for me.)
EDIT:
Specifying ListAST as below generates a huge dict-digraph-error-monster, and says "internal error in lint_module".
String = "[1,2,3].",
{ok, Ts, _} = erl_scan:string(String),
{ok, ListAST} = erl_parse:parse_exprs(Ts),
EDIT2:
This solution works for simple terms:
{ok, Ts, _} = erl_scan:string(String),
{ok, Term} = erl_parse:parse_term(Ts),
ListAST = erl_syntax:abstract(Term),
In your EDIT example:
String = "[1,2,3].",
{ok, Ts, _} = erl_scan:string(String),
{ok, ListAST} = erl_parse:parse_exprs(Ts),
the ListAST is actually a list of AST:s (because parse_exprs, as the name indicates, parses multiple expressions (each terminated by a period). Since your string contained a single expression, you got a list of one element. All you need to do is match that out:
{ok, [ListAST]} = erl_parse:parse_exprs(Ts),
so it has nothing to do with erl_syntax (which accepts all erl_parse trees); it's just that you had an extra list wrapper around the ListAST, which caused the compiler to puke.
Some comments of the top of my head.
I have not really used the erl_syntax libraries but I do think they make it difficult to read and "see" what you are trying to build. I would probably import the functions or define my own API to make it shorter and more legible. But then I generally tend to prefer shorter function and variable names.
The AST created by erl_syntax and the "standard" one created by erl_parse and used in the compiler are different and cannot be mixed. So you have to choose one of them and stick with it.
The example in your second EDIT will work for terms but not in the more general case:
{ok, Ts, _} = erl_scan:string(String),
{ok, Term} = erl_parse:parse_term(Ts),
ListAST = erl_syntax:abstract(Term),
This because erl_parse:parse_term/1 returns the actual term represented by the tokens while the other erl_parse functions parse_form and parse_exprs return the ASTs. Putting them into erl_syntax:abstract will do funny things.
Depending on what you are trying to do it might actually be easier to actually write out and erlang file and compile it rather than working directly with the abstract forms. This goes against my ingrained feelings but generating the erlang ASTs is not trivial. What type of code do you intend to produce?
<shameless_plug>
If you are not scared of lists you might try using LFE (lisp flavoured erlang) to generate code as with all lisps there is no special abstract form, it's all homoiconic and much easier to work with.
</shameless_plug>
Zoltan
This is how we get the AST:
11> String = "fun() -> io:format(\"blah~n\") end.".
"fun() -> io:format(\"blah~n\") end."
12> {ok, Tokens, _} = erl_scan:string(String).
{ok,[{'fun',1},
{'(',1},
{')',1},
{'->',1},
{atom,1,io},
{':',1},
{atom,1,format},
{'(',1},
{string,1,"blah~n"},
{')',1},
{'end',1},
{dot,1}],
1}
13> {ok, AbsForm} = erl_parse:parse_exprs(Tokens).
{ok,[{'fun',1,
{clauses,[{clause,1,[],[],
[{call,1,
{remote,1,{atom,1,io},{atom,1,format}},
[{string,1,"blah~n"}]}]}]}}]}
14>